Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 Next
Comments 115901 to 115950:
-
Marcus at 14:19 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Another point Eric. According to *my* research, Germany had annual CO2 emissions of 788Mt as of 2007 (source http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid=) You actually were using the *total* Greenhouse gas emissions cited in that source you gave, not CO2 alone. You also only gave the total GHG reduction between 1997 to 2005, not 2007 as you claim. If we take total, annual CO2 reductions for 1997 to 2007, then the cut is actually a cut of 913 to 788, or 125Mt/year. Even if this were only the *total* emissions, your original argument would be totally demolished. However, if we look at the total reductions accrued between 1997 to 2007-compared to a business as usual approach-then we get 10,200Mt in business as usual vs 9,600Mt if you take the actual emissions cuts per year provided by your source (+ the two years provided by UN data). So this makes a total reduction in CO2 of 600Mt between 1997 & 2007-20 times more than that released by the volcano in 2010. As time progresses, the difference in the emissions Germany *is* putting out & the emissions it *would* have put out in a "business as usual" model will get greater & greater still. I have to say though Eric-your ability to incorrectly quote your sources, & make erroneous conclusions based on these misrepresented sources, means that you've learned a lot from your fellow denialists. Kudos. -
Baa Humbug at 13:56 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Having read thru the thread, I'd like to make the following points (for whatever they are worth to the reader) * Rajandra Pachauri is the chairman of the IPCC. He is the final signatory to the report. * Willis supplied quotes attributed to Pachauri who made these statements AS the chairman. * If a chairman or CEO of a company makes statements about that company, one would be safe to assume the statements are those of the company. * Journalists and others listening to Pachauri would have, and indeed did, take his word as gospel and quoted him on it. Not too many people rush off to read the fine print in a 3000 page document. Why would you when the chairman answered direct questions on behalf of the panel. * This isn't a case of a single off the cuff comment made by Pachauri. He repeated his claims of 100% peer review on a number of occasions under direct questioning. * The reason why he was questioned was because the integrity of the report was brought into question. * Pachauri defended this integrity with the "all peer reviewed" comment. * Now that we know it wasn't "all peer reviewed" (rightly or wrongly) parts of the reports integrity must still be under question p.s. I was a citizens auditor. I audited over ten chapters. The lists of "working papers" "discussion papers" etc posted by Willis was done by me for Donna Laframboise. I was flabbergasted at the numbers then, I still am now. -
Marcus at 13:55 PM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Ah Eric, each time you try & argue your case, the argument actually gets *weaker*! You're effectively arguing that "Germany shouldn't have bothered making the cuts to its CO2 emissions because a single volcano wiped out their gains". Well to me that's akin to saying "oh well, we shouldn't give this guy life-saving surgery, 'cause he'll probably get killed by a mugger anyway". i.e. its a total non sequitur. Still, even if we were to accept this lame argument, it's completely undone by the available evidence. That evidence being: 1) That the CO2 reductions from grounded air travel during that 2 & a half month period was *greater* than the emissions put out by the volcano. 2) That those cuts you mentioned were for 2007-2008 *only*. Now if Germany is emitting 16Mt less CO2 per annum, then their *total* reductions as of 2010 would be closer to around 40Mt, compared to a "business as usual" approach-already far greater than that put out by the volcano even if you ignore the grounded air-traffic. 3) As you put it, as of 2007, Germany was emitting 76Mt less CO2 per annum than it was back in 1997. Now here's the thing, this doesn't mean that they've put out 76Mt less CO2 between 1997-2007. It means that Germany is putting out 76Mt/year less in 2007 than it was doing in 1997. Now, had it continued it's "business as usual" approach in 1997, it's total emissions for the 1997-2007 period would be around 10,800Mt. Instead, if we assume an average cut of 7.6Mt/year to get down to 1002Mt/year, then they actually emitted closer to, then this means that they actually emitted closer to 10,500Mt over that time period-amounting to a *total* reduction of 300Mt compared to "business as usual"-not 76Mt as you claim-10 times more than the worst case emissions of the volcano. 4) So to sum up the 3 points above-the volcano's CO2 emissions were already more than offset by the reduced emissions from air-traffic during this time. However, even if this wasn't the case, Germany's per annum reductions in CO2 have resulted in a total reduction in CO2 far, far greater than what the Volcano has put out. Again, even if this wasn't true, the cuts in CO2 emissions have come about not simply by boosting renewable energy, but also by reducing the kilograms of CO2 emitted per dollar of GDP-which has resulted in a more efficient economy & monetary savings by individuals & businesses (which is probably part of the reason for the growth in total GDP over that time period). So I guess what this says, Eric, is that your own research is either pretty bad, or that you've chosen to draw completely erroneous conclusions from your research. My research shows that the initial premise still stands-namely that Germany's CO2 emissions cuts have been significant, from an environmental perspective (with or without volcanoes), & have not come at the expense of the economy-as denialists like yourselves want us to believe. -
Willis Eschenbach at 13:47 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
doug_bostrom at 07:04 AM on 4 July, 2010Oh, my goodness. I missed the part where Willis blew his cool, and his cover:
My cause is the investigation and hopefully the rectification of bad science, whether inside the UN or out. Regarding the UN, I worked in international village level development for many years, and have seen the results of many of their failed programs. In addition, both my parents worked for the UN. As a result, I've seen its boondoggles up close and personal. The problems with the UN are internal to the UN. Inherently they have nothing to do with politics, although in the case of climate science (where politicians have been appointed to the IPCC and the results have huge international implications) they overlap. Regarding politics, I voted for Obama ... remind me how that is relevant?[IPCC] has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause.
Ah, so! This is not really about climate science, it's all about the UN. Apparently Willis is using this whole business to advance his "cause." Presumably this is a political cause, it's hard to think what else would fit a complaint about the UN. -
Willis Eschenbach at 13:39 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
JMurphy at 07:46 AM on 4 July, 2010It would appear that Willis Eschenbach has been using other sources without acknowledgement - some of his lists are even in the same order !
Duh ... anyone with half a brain would realize that I didn't go out and research the hundred or so IPCC references in a single day. I didn't reference them because their original provenance is obvious ... the IPCC. What difference does it make where I got them? When the IPCC references a discussion paper, it references a discussion paper. No amount of intermediate collection of different references changes that. -
Willis Eschenbach at 13:29 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Even George Monbiot has given up on your senseless statement that the Amazon claim was peer reviewed. Monbiot before:The ironies of this episode are manifold, but the most obvious is this: that North's story – and the Sunday Times's rewritten account – purported to expose inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood on the part of the IPCC. Now that the IPCC has been vindicated, its accusers, North first among them, are exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood. Ashes to ashes, toast to toast.
Don't like it? Write to George ... Monbiot now (emphasis mine):There is no doubt that the IPCC made a mistake. Sourcing its information on the Amazon to a report by the green group WWF rather than the substantial peer-reviewed literature on the subject, was a bizarre and silly thing to do. ... It is also true that nowhere in the peer-reviewed literature is there a specific statement that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation". This figure was taken from the WWF report and it shouldn't have been".
Oooops ... I've asked here repeatedly for a reference to such a statement from the peer-reviewed literature. I can't find one. George can't find one. I'm still waiting for you to either produce one, or (like Monbiot) admit that you can't find one. -
Willis Eschenbach at 13:19 PM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
JMurphy at 08:07 AM on 4 July, 2010Here's what the IPCC themselves have always stated, as seen in doug_bostrom's link :
Always stated? I fear you missed the part where the document you cited is the proposed revision to the existing rules. As the document says:This provisionally revised Appendix to the Principles Governing IPCC Work contains the procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports and other materials relevant to methodologies. This Appendix complements the Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports, which was adopted at the Fifteenth Session of the IPCC (San Jose, 15-18 April 1999).
This is an appendix to the document "Principles Governing IPCC Work", which was not approved until 2006. The provisionally revised Appendix in question was approved at the Twenty-Ninth Session (Geneva, 31 August – 4 September 2008). I find no record of a final revised version. Always stated? Nice try ... -
Joe Blog at 12:02 PM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
johnd at 11:35 I agree with you here john.... especially when you are talking N, it is meaningless to run short term trials on plant species that dont fixate N... Without knowing the legume response to raised co2 levels. Most farmers will be able to tell at a glance whether their crop/pasture is deficient in N P K or S. And take steps to adjust it. But from all the various links ive read here, plant uptake of N was increased, but growth outstripped available N... so the Q is, if the N was availabe, what would have the composition been? Also, livestock do fine of carbohydrate, dairy stock wont produce that well of it however... but it does depend exactly how starchy it is... but there are steps that can be taken to increase digestibility, from topping/wilting pasture pre grazing, to making silage. -
johnd at 11:35 AM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
neilrieck at 23:28 PM, with regards to your point (2). Given this nutrient limitation is continually raised in discussions on this subject, it is an indication that there is little appreciation of how agriculture works in practice. The usual response is that the increased growth due to higher CO2 levels requires increased inputs of nutrients as if that is a negative factor, big enough to nullify all the benefits of the extra growth. That argument seems to imply that under current conditions the soil is able to provide an infinite supply of all the nutrients required, in the correct balance, completely free of charge. What is not understood so well is that the growing of food or fibre, with or without changes in CO2 levels, strips significant amounts of those essential nutrients from the soil which then disappears down the road on the back of a truck where it ends up being delivered onto someones plate, with half ending up being dumped. Increased output from the soil cannot be achieved without firstly replacing and then increasing those nutrients that are being stripped out. An equilibrium will be established based on what input is the limiting factor during the growth period. That may be the optimum growth achievable under those circumstances, but it may not be the optimum growth that the plant itself is genetically capable of. It has been over 100 years since it was discovered that one of the limitations to achieving optimum plant growth was the enhancement of the supply of CO2 to the plant, and trials since then have established that optimum plant growth for many species requires CO2 levels perhaps several times current levels. Obviously that extra growth requires extra inputs of all the other nutrients in order to provide the increased output. There should not be any concern or mystery about such a basic truth. -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:54 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Johnd, you have your terminology and concepts confused, especially in that point #3. In TD, heat is the net energy flow, that's correct, so it is not a mean of transfer. Energy transfer can occur in any direction but heat only flows to the colder body. Radiation is a way to transfer energy but it is not heat in itself. Energy can be transfered by radiation, conduction, convection. Multiple transfers can be occurring at equilibrium, as along as the net flow is zero (i.e. TOA incoming and outgoing radiation). -
Doug Bostrom at 10:54 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Here's what you originally said, JohnD: robhon at 02:23 AM, the radiation of heat is always in one direction, from the warmer body to the cooler. That's wrong, because of your use of the term "radiation." Now you elaborate and your explanation actually becomes worse, but this is helpful because leaving all my spleen aside I think you're on the cusp of understanding something important: 1. energy can only be transferred by heat between bodies of different temperatures, thus, obviously, at equilibrium no transfer occurs. Ok, if you mean to exclude radiation as a transfer means. You don't: 2. the transfer only occurs in the direction of the colder body, be it by radiation, conduction or convection. You still seem to be harboring your fallacy about radiation. In reality, since we know that photons are not endowed with what you essentially visualize as knowledge of what will happen to them in the future, they can and indeed will be emitted from a cooler body and traveling in the direction of a warmer body if such a body stands in their path upon emission. Upon arrival there's a statistical probability they will transfer some quantum of energy to that warmer body, raising its temperature. If you can get your head around this concept you'll understand how the so-called greenhouse effect can raise the surface temperature of the planet. -
Phila at 10:37 AM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Normally, it's the young that are more concerned with gaining approval of their peers and possibly find themselves with more to loose by standing out as the odd-ball. People tend to be conformists at all stages of life; the tendency just manifests itself in different ways at different points. We all know that some people blindly accept AGW for political or social reasons, and others blindly doubt it for political or social reasons. Fortunately, we have solid evidence that tells us which group of ignorant conformists is closer to the truth. -
Joe Blog at 10:34 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
3.radiation is the transfer of energy by heat. I didnt really want to go here, because its just semantics... technically speaking, heat in thermodynamics is a measure of the net flow of energy between systems... so by definition, heat can only be one way.... Radiation, on the other hand, is not directional. Radiation is a form of energy transfer. -
johnd at 10:30 AM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
LukeW at 00:04 AM, thanks for posting the link to the "The Land" article. Although it only gave a glancing reference to the role management may be playing in the increase of woody weeds, I think that management is probably a major factor. In recent years there has been a dramatic decline in stock numbers, particularly in those areas where the woody weeds are growing. Without the grazing pressure, the weeds will increase with or without increased CO2. This is one of the arguments put forward by the high country cattlemen who are being shut out of national parks by the government. All it will take is one devastating fire and the government will suddenly realise that the arguments that have been put to them make sense after all. -
johnd at 09:58 AM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Chris G at 00:07 AM, I think I might know what papers those students who have graduated are now working at. :-( -
Joe Blog at 09:53 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
1. energy can only be transferred by heat between bodies of different temperatures, thus, obviously, at equilibrium no transfer occurs. Id put it more as, that at equilibrium, energy transfer is balanced... it dosnt stop molecules radiating when they are at the same state as their neighbors... equilibrium by definition is a balance, a molecule will be receiving what its emitting. 2. the transfer only occurs in the direction of the colder body, be it by radiation, conduction or convection. Well, no not really, energy transfer by radiation will be in all directions, with the net flow of energy being from hotter to colder... A thermally "hot" system, will loose energy faster the greater the differential between its state, and its neighbors. 3.radiation is the transfer of energy by heat. -
johnd at 09:41 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
doug_bostrom at 09:30 AM, doug, it is always about the NETT flow, at least in the real world, which is what I am only interested in. What you are arguing is the situation in a theoretical world in a theoretical state of equilibrium. You also appear to be arguing that although molecules are composed of electrical charged particles, their behaviour is not subject to the forces of the greater electromagnetic field in which the molecule in question resides. It is not about photons choosing direction, it's about molecules being able to sense the state of that surrounding electromagnetic environment. As the temperature of a body rises, the frequency at which it radiates thermal energy increases, thus a molecule not in equilibrium, but at a lower temperature, is being bombarded by energy at a higher frequency than it can emit at from in the direction that the higher frequency energy originates from. There are a couple of basic points that need to be appreciated:- 1. energy can only be transferred by heat between bodies of different temperatures, thus, obviously, at equilibrium no transfer occurs. 2. the transfer only occurs in the direction of the colder body, be it by radiation, conduction or convection. 3.radiation is the transfer of energy by heat. Unless one of the about points is not true, then by putting them all together it appears that if there is no transfer of energy, remembering that transfer can only occur in the direction from a warmer body to a cooler body, then there has been no radiation, again remembering that radiation is the transfer of energy by heat. -
Joe Blog at 08:18 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Adam C at 01:51 In the pamphlet it is worded as this IDENTIFYING THE GREENHOUSE SIGNATURE "The greenhouse effect leaves a clear signature in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases stop heat from reaching the upper atmosphere. So we expect to see warming in the lower atmosphere(troposphere). And cooling in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). This is exactly what we observe. There have been three people in this thread who have taken it literally as it is written, and id dare say the commentators here are more scientifically literate than the general public. It is a minor point, but i think the wording could have been better. One of those things i suppose, youve gotta keep the message simple enough to be understood. And stratospheric cooling due to increases in anthropogenic co2 is a lil less simple, than you can explain in one or two sentences. -
kdkd at 08:08 AM on 4 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken #123 Chris is absolutely right. Your argument lacks validity. You can continue to try to talk around circles. This will fool some people whose statistical knowledge is less than or equal to yours, but it's very clear that as your understanding of statistics is very limited, and that your susceptibility to the Dunning-Kreuger effect is extremely high. But by all means, continue to talk around in circles using semi-technical posts as a smokescreen for your lack of crucial knowledge to be able to critically evaluate the science properly. p.s. Again chris is right, looking at the results and regression diagnostics of a linear regression, there's absolutely no justification to move to a quadratic model - in fact this would likely result in over-fit - i.e. fitting noise as if it was signal. -
JMurphy at 08:07 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Here's what the IPCC themselves have always stated, as seen in doug_bostrom's link : Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent. -
JMurphy at 07:46 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
It would appear that Willis Eschenbach has been using other sources without acknowledgement - some of his lists are even in the same order ! They seem to come from here and here. -
Doug Bostrom at 07:04 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Oh, my goodness. I missed the part where Willis blew his cool, and his cover: [IPCC] has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause. Ah, so! This is not really about climate science, it's all about the UN. Apparently Willis is using this whole business to advance his "cause." Presumably this is a political cause, it's hard to think what else would fit a complaint about the UN. It would probably be a good thing if Willis were explicit as to the purpose of his "cause." Case of the pot calling the kettle black: "I don't like the UN's politics because the UN's politics don't comport with my politics." Not really about science, after all those words. Tsk. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:42 AM on 4 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Two Daniels? -
Doug Bostrom at 06:28 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
By the way, Willis, I notice that once you saw the actual Greenpeace/WWF "propaganda" content you say is "so often" used by IPCC identified as composing something like 11/100ths of 1% of IPCC cites, you quickly changed the parameters of your complaint. Like I say, it's hopeless discussing this with you, you're not trying to improve anybody's understanding of the matter. If you were, you'd acknowledge you'd made an error and that 11/100ths of 1% is not "often." -
Riccardo at 06:23 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
I was wondering how many non peer review papers have been used by the IPCC and I'm impressed by the numbers Willis Eschenbach gave. Given that they were allowed to use non peer review papers I have to say that they did a really awesome job. -
Doug Bostrom at 06:20 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Willis nothing I say or do is going to change your habits. You've got your agenda, have fun with it. Doug, like I said, I think that the rule on only peer reviewed science in the IPCC reports is stupid. What's more stupid, a nonexistent rule or constantly asserting in public that it exists? Just for the record, Willis has somehow missed the procedural steps described by the IPCC for inclusion of non-peer reviewed materials in IPCC synthesis reports. Either that or Willis would really like readers to form the wrong impression. IPCC has broken none of its "rules." Read about how IPCC prefers non-peer reviewed literature be used here in Appendix A, Annex 2: PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS (pdf) -
RSVP at 05:41 AM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
whoopsi: AGW not AWG. -
John Russell at 05:26 AM on 4 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
One of the things I've always wondered about is the effect dimming has on crop growth. If we are seeing a 10% reduction in brightness of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, does this reduce our ability to produce the yields required for the 50% increase in food production that the UN says we'll need by 2050 for the additional 2.5bn people that will be clamouring to be fed by then? Perhaps this is something to factor in when considering dumping sulphates in the upper atmosphere as a geo-engineering 'fix'? I'd be grateful if one of the scientists here could set my mind at rest. -
Willis Eschenbach at 05:03 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
doug_bostrom at 02:59 AM on 4 July, 2010 I said:...we have been told over and over that the IPCC considers nothing but peer reviewed documents.
This statement was questioned, and I was asked to provide citations. I provided a number of quotations from the head of the IPCC, Pachauri, saying that exact thing. Now you accuse me of not sticking to the facts? That's the facts, I have provided the quotations as requested. You replied:In point of fact the IPCC has never had such a policy. Why does Willis want to convey the opposite, incorrect impression?
A citation for your claim that they have no such policy would be helpful. Oh, and you should tell Pachauri, as he has said over and over that they do have such a policy. For example, he explicitly said that they don't use discussion papers, they only use peer-reviewed science, and the rest they just "throw into the dustbin" ... but guess what? The IPCC does use discussion papers, but only the ones that fit the party line. Go figure. Next, you say:Of course, Nepstad is in fact the author of the papers in question and has specifically pointed to the papers he authored and which he points out justify the IPCC's remarks. Why does Willis want to convey a false impression?
Nepstad is not the author of the un-reviewed IPCC citation in question. That would be Rowell and Moore writing for the WWF. Nor is he the author of the un-reviewed paper that Rowell and Moore cite. I have read the papers by Nepstad. None of them contain the claim made by the IPCC. Perhaps you could point out where Nepstad claimed that "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation". He may believe that, and it may be true, but I have looked, and I can't find it anywhere in Nepstad's work. Now I certainly could have missed it ... so if could you point out which of Nepstad's peer-reviewed papers and which paragraph of that paper made that claim? I have provided the citations and exact quotations that you requested, perhaps you could return the favor. Next, you say:Anyway, the statistical outcome from looking at Willis' original claim that the IPCC relies on "propaganda pieces so often" is obviously not helpful to your case. No wonder he avoided putting up numbers. Who is conveying propaganda? Seeking to distort public thinking by suggesting "often" equals less than 1/10th of 1% seems to me like promoting an agenda based on false impressions.
Doug, if a man said "I never cheated on my wife", finding out that he cheated once makes his word worthless. Doesn't matter that he had sex with his wife a thousand times, so he only cheated on his wife 1/10th of 1% of the time. He still cheated. The same is true about the IPCC. Pachauri has repeatedly claimed that the IPCC only used peer reviewed science, and never used anything else because the rest was "voodoo science". I have given a dozens and dozens of examples of the use of newspaper articles and discussion papers and the like. As a result, just like the wife of the man who was cheating, people reasonably feed betrayed. You still seem to think that the issue is the veracity of a working paper or a discussion paper or a newspaper article. I know very well what a working paper is. I also know what a discussion paper is, and a newspaper article. The point is that they are not peer reviewed. You folks have established peer review as the gold standard, not me. You made your bed, you established the rules, now you want to say well, we only broke the rules dozens and dozens of times, so it doesn't count. Nice try. Finally, you say:Anyway, the statistical outcome from looking at Willis' original claim that the IPCC relies on "propaganda pieces so often" is obviously not helpful to your case. No wonder he avoided putting up numbers.
Here are the numbers I put up: WORKING GROUP, Percentage of citations not peer-reviewed. Working Group 1, 7% Working Group 2, 34% Working Group 3, 57% For an IPCC which claims that its results are based on nothing but peer-reviewed science, that's pathetic. You can defend it all you like, but you'd be better off to obey the first rule of holes - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Doug, like I said, I think that the rule on only peer reviewed science in the IPCC reports is stupid. I would allow any valid, supported, verified science. But I wasn't consulted when they made that rule. I see that they are now planning to change the rule for the Fifth Assessment Report, which is reasonable to me. But until they do so, the IPCC made the rules, Pachauri proclaimed the rules far and wide, the IPCC broke the rules, and as a result the IPCC lost the trust of the public. You may not like that, but there it is. -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:36 AM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Two more points if I may, Marcus. First I reject the idea that "volcanoes do more damage than man". It is incorrect. Second, I augmented my argument above from volcanoes to from volcanoes to the pointlessness of German cuts in the context of manmade totals. The cuts are scientifically insignificant (0.05% of the manmade total). Since this is a science thread (and site) I don't want to argue whether or not the German cuts make a political difference. -
RSVP at 04:20 AM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
"The majority were middle-aged and elderly." Normally, it's the young that are more concerned with gaining approval of their peers and possibly find themselves with more to loose by standing out as the odd-ball. Perhaps the age of those attending can be interpreted as a "proxy" measurement of the popularity of AWG. -
Eric (skeptic) at 04:09 AM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Marcus, I correctly pointed out that the volcano matched the EU cuts and easily undid the cuts by Germany which was my own research, not cribbed from a "denialist" site. On the other hand, your response is erroneous. You claim that Germany's emissions have decreased to 487 million tonnes in 2007 from 650 million tonnes 10 years ago, apparently by extrapolating their 2007-2008 "cuts" in reverse. As I pointed out, the cuts are only the "verified" cuts from sources controlled by their cap and trade, not country totals. The total German emissions were 1078 Mt in 1997 and 1002 in 2007 for a drop of 76 Mt over 10 years (from http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3436.pdf data source). Out of the 76 Mt drop, 30 Mt (worst case) were undone by the volcano. Let's hope the volcano doesn't erupt any more or that it doesn't produce any larger amounts of CO2. -
Peter Hogarth at 03:42 AM on 4 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
daniel at 18:21 PM on 2 July, 2010 I think you may have missed or misunderstood the point. If there were short term variations of the magnitude which you suggest between the sparse points then the probability of all of these randomly sampled points fitting any smooth long term curve is small. Statistically, your alternative is most certainly not "just as likely"! Any extra points we find which also fit the curve increases the probability that the curve is a good model, and constrains other probable models to those with low amplitude variations. With respect, if this is lost on you, then I understand why you keep re-iterating your point, and you should address this. I would not argue that you should not question the work of experts. I am arguing that Donnelly is presenting work that is specialist. His data is site specific and is intended to add a small piece to the unfolding picture which is science, rather than act as first line defence against "climate skepticism". That you accept that drivers of sea level should be accounted for is a good step, yet you still do not appear to modify your suggestion of "likely" high sea level variations in light of this. This is not scientific. -
Doug Bostrom at 02:59 AM on 4 July 2010IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Willis does not seem to be able to have a discussion while sticking with facts. As Riccardo suggests, this means talking with Willis is rather pointless. ...we have been told over and over that the IPCC considers nothing but peer reviewed documents. In point of fact the IPCC has never had such a policy. Why does Willis want to convey the opposite, incorrect impression? With regard to Nepstad, Willis says "So why should I care what Nepstad says in answer to a question by a reporter? What he said is no more peer reviewed than what I say. If it were, how come nobody can provide us with a citation to the study?" Of course, Nepstad is in fact the author of the papers in question and has specifically pointed to the papers he authored and which he points out justify the IPCC's remarks. Why does Willis want to convey a false impression? As to "working papers" being yet another badge of unreliability, Willis connects the concept with "not even finished", again seeking to convey an incorrect impression that a working paper is some sort of student project that was not completed. Why does Willis want to convey that wrong impression? A person authoring and then persistently defending what by almost any definition is propaganda relying on false impressions is a useless discussion partner. Propaganda does not axiomatically equate to untruth, but it may include untruth. What I read of Willis' work suggests he's conducting a campaign to sway public opinion, relying on conveying wrong impressions to promote his agenda. Anyway, the statistical outcome from looking at Willis' original claim that the IPCC relies on "propaganda pieces so often" is obviously not helpful to your case. No wonder he avoided putting up numbers. Who is conveying propaganda? Seeking to distort public thinking by suggesting "often" equals less than 1/10th of 1% seems to me like promoting an agenda based on false impressions. It's pretty appalling to witness this style of cognitive vandalism, I'll say that. -
chris at 02:31 AM on 4 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken Lambert at 22:57 PM on 3 July 2010 O.K. I thought that was where your “offset” might have come from; it’s much as I showed here. Agreed? However that is a spurious analysis Ken. Regressing small sections of any dataset with a linear trend that has variability in its progression will result in regression fits that don’t “meet” at the ends. That doesn’t mean that there is an “offset”! It just means that the data doesn’t conform to a mathematically perfect straight line. All your analysis shows is that there is variability in the temporal progression of sea level rise around its long term trend. But we know that already. So there is no evidence for “offsets” yes? Analysis of sea level trend. Apparently you didn’t look at Peter’s quadratic fit. Fitting the satellite sea level data with a quadratic results in a curve that is almost indistinguishable from a straight line (see here for the data). The reason that the linear fit is appropriate is because its context can be made explicit; i.e. we can ask: ” Given the variability in the data is the sea level rise consistent with a linear progression in time, or is it accelerating or decelerating?” Whether one uses a linear regression or a quadratic there is no evidence in the data that sea level rise is accelerating or decelerating. The current sea level is pretty much smack on the level it “should be” by projecting forward from nearly 18 years ago with a linear trend of around 3.2 mm.yr-1. Why does the linear regression and the quadratic give virtually the same fit? It’s because the constant of the third term of the quadratic is close to zero (it’s around 0.03, a value more than 100 times smaller than the year on year change in sea level of around 3.2). Attempting to infer an “acceleration” or “deceleration” from the sea level rise from the coefficient of a quadratic fit is simply spurious in this case. On ocean heat content and steric sea level rise. You seem surprised that ”steric SLR is non-linear against OHC rise”. There’s no reason why they should be linear Ken. The steric sea level rise from a given addition of OHC depends on where the heat ends up. The same number of calories (the energy required to warm 1 gm of water by 1 oC) results in a volume expansion that depends on the water temperature (and pressure). 1 calorie of thermal energy causes an expansion of warm surface waters that is larger than the thermally-induced expansion of colder deeper water. The difference is large; up to 2-fold for heat deposited in the upper 700 metres compared to heat deposited in the deeper oceans. And we know that measurement of OHC content is very difficult; even the last few years have seen large readjustments in the data. It’s unlikely that we’re yet on top of the OHC measurements, especially in accounting for heat that is taken to depths below 700 metres. Otherwise attempting fundamental interpretations by fixing in stone uncertain numbers obtained over very short periods isn’t that helpful. As Trenberth points out [*] the entire apparent discrepancy in apparent ocean heat content, sea level rise and TOA radiative imbalance over a very short time period could be resolved if the “residual heat” ”is being sequestered in the deep oceans below the 900 m depth used for the ARGO analysis where it would contribute 0.4-0.5 mm.yr-1 sea level rise….”. We know that 0.1-0.15 W.m-2 (globally averaged) of the apparent heat imbalance can be understood in terms of the descent to a very prolonged solar minimum during the period 2003-2009. Each of these (as well as short term variations in atmospheric conditions) may be contributing to the apparent imbalance during the very short period 2004-2008. Already the sea level rise has recovered during the last couple of years, likely due to an acceleration (during this short period) in the steric sea level contribution. When these very short term uncertainties have been sorted out we’ll have a clearer picture obviously… [*] K.E Trenberth (2009) An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy Curr. Op. Environ. Sustain. 1, 19–27 -
KR at 02:08 AM on 4 July 2010Sea level rise is exaggerated
Actually, daniel, I think that would be insulting unicorns would be ad Unicornis, as best I can tell. I'll apologize now to the greater Unicornis community... Sorry about the mis-reference to temperature, instead of sea level - proof that I sometimes don't proof-read enough! And that perhaps I'm taking too much cold medicine at the moment :) "Are there excursions outside that linear trend that don't fall upon the sample points" means that the sample points in that Donnelly paper mark, within the errors on vegetation prevalence and radiocarbon dating, points on the sea level record. The simplest fit justified by the record is a piece-wise linear fit running through each data point. The least justified fit is a line that avoids your data points. Given the noise in that simple reconstruction, it's reasonable to time-average data points, especially for the recent (dense, somewhat noisy) data points. Note that the core samples have some implicit time averaging - it takes time for vegetation to grow, and the sample investigated is not going to be a 2D core slice; the thickness of it (and is the sediment flat there?) will introduce some time averaging. I didn't see that explicitly stated in the paper, but that's a known element for core analysis - you don't tend to see day-to-day changes in them! Either way - the reconstruction best justified from the evidence in this experiment should pass through or very close to each of the data points or averages. The data "anchors" the reconstruction there, and any large deviation from the trend (excursion) would have to either (a) show as a shifted data point, or (b) occur between data points - and vanish again before the next one. However, there is in this experiment actual evidence against offsets from the reconstructed sea level trend around the data points themselves. -
Adam C at 01:51 AM on 4 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
#34 and 38: I have to agree with Joe Blog here. I was dinged during my comps for making a statement similar to "As greenhouse gases stop heat from reaching the upper atmosphere, a distinct greenhouse signature is a warming lower atmosphere and cooling upper atmosphere." The key is that the energy balance of the stratosphere is dominated by the absorption of UV radiation from the sun, not IR radiation (or conduction) from below. This is why (as Joe noted) it has an increasing temperature profile with height. The outgoing portion of the energy balance is restricted. The stratosphere has no clouds to speak of and little water vapour, and so outgoing radiation is dominated by IR emission from CO2. Increasing the CO2 concentration greatly increases the efficiency of the stratosphere as an emitter of IR radiation. It doesn't matter whether that radiation goes up or down; what matters is it carries energy out of the stratosphere (causing cooling). Ozone depletion has a cooling effect. Increased heat trapping in the troposphere has an effect (but only in the transient case!). Both are much smaller than the direct effects of increasing stratospheric CO2. None of this, btw, contradicts anything said in John's fine pamphlet, which doesn't specify the relationship between increased CO2 and stratospheric cooling. -
Lou Grinzo at 01:11 AM on 4 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Great post, John. What worries me about this situation is the relative life spans of CO2 and other pollution (sulfates, etc.) from burning coal. If we reduce our use of coal, the dimming effect will end almost immediately, leaving us at the mercy of a couple of centuries of CO2 emissions. If we keep burning coal as we are now, we're cooked. The only alternative is to find a way to make CCS work on a large enough scale and then deploy it to new plants as well as those already in operation. Quite the nasty corner we've painted ourselves into... -
Bernard J. at 00:49 AM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
"I was trying to prick Annie's prejudged liberal conscience with her apparent ageism, very silly of me." It's actually a good point, but one that requires careful balance. The tension between the wisdom that comes with age, and the potential intellectual scenescence that also follows aging, is one that could keep a number of philosophers - and also some psychologists - occupied for years. Not at tax-payers expense though - of course... -
Chris G at 00:07 AM on 4 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
JohnD at 10:01, Had to chuckle. My wife works at a university and is in the school paper from time to time. Sometimes what the student journalists report bears little resemblance to what she said. CNN came to town and did a story once. They manufactured a lot of drama, and in the end, the guy with the longest time on screen was the window washer who just happened to be there. -
LukeW at 00:04 AM on 4 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
There's evidence that increased CO2 also increases cold injury to plants (although diehard sceptics will say "but there's not supposed to be any more frost under AGW - sheesh !) Also will increased CO2 preference C3 native woody shrub growth in savanna grasslands (C4s)- so biasing grasslands into woody thickets such as happens in Australia, southern USA and southern Africa. Of course much of contemporary thickening is probably due to fire suppression but CO2 can increase the trend further. Examples of shrub invasion in Australia would be the huge woody weeds patch around Cobar. http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/woody-weeds-love-co2/1729857.aspx?storypage=0 The ecophysiological effect on grasslands will be complex. On the plus side perhaps more freshwater runoff through improved transpiration efficiency although the following paper is somewhat controversial. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7078/full/nature04504.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7157/abs/nature06045.html -
HumanityRules at 23:48 PM on 3 July 2010An account of the Watts event in Perth
Bernard J. at 23:11 PM on 2 July, 2010 There are also many societies that recognise the risk of dotage in older generations. Marcus at 23:25 PM on 2 July, 2010 There also those who recognize that those of the older generation can sometimes be conservative to the point of blind stubbornness. lol, I have to say I agree with both. I was trying to prick Annie's prejudged liberal conscience with her apparent ageism, very silly of me. The youth should be the vigor and drive in changing society it's just a same that climate change is one of the many causes in today's society that encourage cynicism and dis-engagement. -
neilrieck at 23:28 PM on 3 July 2010CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate
Using this line of simplified reasoning means that I only need to eat a high protein supplement in order to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger :-) So here are the facts about CO2 and plants: 1) It is true that the amount of pollen released by a plant is proportional to the level of CO2 so you would expect many more plants. But the "keeling curve" continues to increase so why aren't the plants compensating? 2) In controlled experiments, a huge increase in CO2 will only increase the growth speed, size, and numbers of plants by a few percent because plant growth is limited by a lack of nitrogen (protein synthesis is impossible without it). Ammonium Nitrate is more important to plant growth than increased levels of CO2. (as an aside, even if plants did better in controlled experiments they would still have problems in the real world. Why? Plants are on the ground but CO2 is distributed throughout a three-dimensional volume. It's an area vs. volume issue) 3) plants pull in CO2 through a hole known as a stoma (or stomata). Since these pores also are also the site for water loss, a plant growing in a high CO2 environment will actually adapt to produce much fewer stomas TO LIMIT WATER LOSS. -
Ken Lambert at 22:57 PM on 3 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Chris #122 Again Chris - stick to the numbers. If SLR is supposed to be linear - simply do a linear curve fit for Topex 1993-2002, and a linear fit for Jason 1 2002-2009 and see if the end of Topex matches up with the start of Jason 1. If not; there is your offset. Your emotive language like 'trolling, bullying and numerology' is just a cover Chris for the fact that you will not engage on the numbers. Your comment: "Fitting a quadratic to a temporal progression of a parameter is meaningless unless one has some independent justification for the quadratic and its particular form"; is just nonsense Chris. You could equally make the same nonsensical point about 'linear' relationships. I have just shown that steric SLR is non-linear against OHC rise according to Dr Trenberth's numbers. Neither have you addressed the ice melt/steric numbers which don't match the 'observed' SLR rise according to Dr Trenberth and are no where near the OHC budget. Nor have you explained why Dr Trenberth's 0.9W/sq.m (145E20 Joules/year)heat gain is NOT what the Earth is purportedly accumulating every year. The 0.9W/sq.m is composed of a sum of several heating and cooling forcings and responses; but the main driver is CO2GHG. The claim of AGW scientists such as Dr Trenberth is that the cooling forcings (clouds and aerosols) are not changing much if at all year on year, so the 0.9W/sq.m should hold and increase - driven by logarithmic CO2 ratio. -
HumanityRules at 22:29 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
"Wild just said that you can not compare SSR and forcing at TOA taken at face values." That still doesn't detract from the idea that he uses an inadequate argument to dismiss the role of TSI in the change of measured SSR. An arguement he, and you, state is based on a false comparison. What is the magnitude of the "enormous" difference in the decade changes in SSR and the long term TOA trend and where does that difference arise? My argument is it is sufficiently large to allow changes in TSI to have some impact on the changes seen in the SSR measurement. Dismissing TSI based on the 0.17 figure is dismissing it based on the wrong measurement. That is what Wild does in his review. -
Riccardo at 21:33 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
HumanityRules, it's not that SSR and TSI are incommensurable quantities. Wild just said that you can not compare SSR and forcing at TOA taken at face values. -
HumanityRules at 21:25 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
Apologies that the quote from the review is so long but here it is in full. "The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/ brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. Therein, radiative forcings altering solar radiation between preindustrial (year 1750) and present day are on the order of minus 1–2 W m2 on a global average, while some of the surface-based estimates show similar or larger changes already within a decade (Tables 1–3). Indeed, under the assumption of a climate sensitivity of 0.5–1C perWm2 radiative forcing as suggested by current climate models, a change of several W m2 decade1 as inferred from surface observations would imply enormous decadal variations in surface temperature which are not observed." It appears from the numbers presented here that the decadal changes in SSR are an order of magnitude (or more) greater than the long term decadal trend at the TOA. Where does this enormous difference come from? Surely from the changes in the additive effects of a greenhouse atmosphere. That means the additive effects on the paltry 0.17 from changes in the sun must also be enormous when measured at the surface. The question surely has to be if "enormous" is anywhere near "an order of magnitude". Wild doesn't say. And until he does it seems difficult to rule out how much changes in the sun is contributing to these changes in dimming/brightening as measured at the surface. To go back to my original point, what he's doing here "The larger of these two estimates is equivalent to a global average increase of 0.17 W m2 decade1 in energy input to the climate system due to the variable emission from the Sun. These estimates are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the changes detected from surface observations of SSR." seems to be exactly what he warns against doing here. "The decadal changes in SSR found in the dimming/brightening literature are at first sight often unrealistically large from a radiative forcing viewpoint, as, e.g., presented by IPCC [2007]. [...] However, one should be aware that the radiative forcing concept as used in the IPCC reports applies to changes at the tropopause, which cannot be directly compared to changes at the surface." that is comparing a TOA reading to SSR. Maybe we could clear this up if you could state what the changes in SSR would be from the 0.17Wm2/decade measured at the TOA due to solar variation. I don't think Wild presents enough here to state that accurately. -
RSVP at 21:05 PM on 3 July 2010A Scientific Guide to the 'Skeptics Handbook'
Riccardo This is what I suspected. My sense is that GHG's explain how the atmosphere has comes up to temperature since O2 and N2 would otherwise only warm through convection off the Earth's surface, and I assume that this has been deemed or calculated as not sufficient to explain current temperatures. If these gases are not good radiators of IR, and as they make up the bulk of our atmosphere, it should be fair to say they are responsible for holding (or storing) energy at some ambient level. For this same reason, the direct heating of these gases through industrial waste heat should be accumulating in these gases as well, and possibly the only way for it to cool is actually via GHG's, as they emit IR. -
Riccardo at 20:21 PM on 3 July 2010What happened to greenhouse warming during mid-century cooling?
HumanityRules, "all else being equal", the change is still proportional to the change in TSI (both scattered and absorbed fluxes are proportional to the incoming flux), and is "at least an order of magnitude smaller than the changes detected from surface observations of SSR." -
chris at 20:17 PM on 3 July 2010Astronomical cycles
Ken Lambert at 00:24 AM on 3 July, 2010 ONE offsets: You're trolling Ken. We've already shown you how the satellite data was merged to effectively eliminate offsets. You ignored this, but you should address it if you wish to pursue the insinuation of "offsets". I have asked you and kdkd has asked you to show how you determined the offsets. You ignored those requests too. I suggested what you might have done based on your assertions. You ignored that. And yet here you are asserting "offsets" by insinuation again. That's trolling. Why not simply state explicitly how you determined these apparent "offsets"? I think I know what you've done...if so it's invalid numerology. But we won't know for sure unless you tell us. TWO: linear/quadratic trends: Science isn't addressed by attempts at bullying Ken ("Prove to me that BP's quadratic approach is wrong!"). Fitting a quadratic to a temporal progression of a parameter is meaningless unless one has some independent justification for the quadratic and its particular form, and you should be careful not to be fooled by flawed analyses [*]. In the case of a relative short (18 year) period of sea level rise with significant variability from measurement "noise" and internal variability we have to be careful not to mislead ourselves with inappropriate curve fitting that is hopelessly biased by the short term variability (see [*] below). However we can ask a simple question about the data, namely: ” Given the variability in the data is the sea level rise consistent with a linear progression in time, or is it accelerating or decelerating?” If we take the data (say the unadjusted dataset with seasonal signal removed ) and project forward from the very start of the record with a linear trend of 3.2 mm.yr-1, we find that the current sea level is pretty much smack on the projected trend. That’s an inescapable fact. However one fiddles around with inappropriate curve fits and other numerological “analyses” (see [*] below), one can’t escape the observational fact that the sea level data is entirely consistent with a continuing linear trend of around 3.2 mm.yr-1 rise . Might sea level rise be decreasing? Possibly, but there is no evidence for such a conclusion. Might it be accelerating? Possibly, but we can’t say from the data yet. THREE: heat budget Your other points were addressed here. You're still asserting a fundamental fallacy, i.e. "...keeping in mind that the CO2GHG theory requires that the biosphere gain 145E20 Joules/year every year."; this will never be correct no matter how many times you repeat it. ------------------------------------------- [*] the problem with Peter's seductive numerology can be seen by fitting a quadratic to the full satellite data set (Peter apparently fitted only 16 years of this). If one does so the already small "acceleration term" of -0.108 mm.yr^(-2) is reduced to -0.0318 mm.yr^(-2). The resulting quadratic fit is barely distinguishable from a linear fit. Scientists and skeptics aren’t fooled by flawed numerology…..
Prev 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 Next
